It is well known that DEI (“diversity, equity and inclusion”) offices, programs and efforts are under fire, especially in higher education. I think that I “get” why: it seems that while the public is mostly in favor of “colorblindness”, many think that “colorblindness” does not go far enough, so “bringing race into it” became in fashion in liberal circles.
Roughly speaking: for the most part, aside from isolated incidents, the very open, formerly legal, very overt racism is behind us (i. e. legalized segregation, which existed in my lifetime). Things like racial slurs are punished. And yes, that IS progress. But many feel that is now time to go further. This is a good analysis of that position:
The issue I have is this: one can make an intellectual and moral case for viewing people as belonging to a block. But will that benefit them? Why would those NOT in that block be inspired to give a bit extra or give something up to help them?
As far as an approach that I think might work with the public on the whole, well, let’s say that Tim Scott’s candidacy interests me. Yes, he is still and Republican, and no, supply side economics does not work. But as far as how to view the very real problems with current racism, I think he speaks well and does so in a manner that might appeal to the public on the whole.
Here is the speech:
He pulls no punches here, but speaks in a way that I think the public will accept.
And HERE is where I often mix it up with “woke” liberals: when I say things like that, I get accused of “tone policing” and the like. HOW DARE you tell others how to express their feelings!
And that is the deal: IF you are not in power (as they claim); if your group is not the majority or even close to a plurality, and if your group has disproportionately less wealth and power, well, IF you want those outside of your group to change behavior and/or attitudes, you had better care how your message is received. Those you claim as being “privileged” might well decide to exercise their privilege and tune you out, or, even worse, start actively opposing you.
Topic Two: it is NOT all about me.
It is “Pride month” and my baseball team said something:
Some supported it, but you also had some of the old “quit ramming this down my throat” response.
Here is the deal: The Chiefs put on lots of promotions. They have “Faith and Family” night. They sometimes have people sing “God Bless America”. They honor veterans. They even sometimes have a local sing the National Anthem in that country style (which I find very irritating…and remember, this is a professional version; the amateurs aren’t nearly as good)
And the Chiefs have promotions all game long.
I am there for baseball. But that is ME, and, while I am a customer, I am not the only customer, and I am not even the typical customer.
The Chiefs have to appeal to a broad audience to stay in business. Their franchise does NOT revolve around me, nor should it.
The same is true about so many other things.
There are sporting events (say, marathons or longer) that I can no longer do. But others can.
The bike/walking paths I use: shared. Walkers, fast runners, cyclists, families out to enjoy the beautiful river: it belongs to all of us. Yes, they sometimes set up tents and close off one part of the path (still access to a detour): yes, but thousands enjoy those outdoor festivals. That area is not just for me.
The things I like in the community are shared, and shared by many others who are NOT like me.
I am not owed a boutique society.
But, of course, I agree that a shared space won’t work without rules and etiquette and there will always be some debate about what said rules and etiquette should be.
Life of an old goat 